The Death of One Osama

"Bin Laden is Killed," headlines blanketed the world, a few days ago. Many rejoiced and felt justice was served while a few mourned the mass murderer’s demise. Celebration and mourning aside, the fact is that the death of one demon does not mark the end of the evil of Islamism. In the same way that it is in the nature of swamps to breed mosquitoes, Islam is the incubator of jihadist mass murderers.

In a statement, Al-Qaeda has praised the “sheikh” as a hero by proclaiming shamelessly: where else would one expect a warrior of Allah be martyred other than on the battlefield?

Some kind of battlefield, indeed. The sheikh was battling from the trenches of a million dollar mansion in the secure bosom of the duplicitous Pakistani military, served by a raft of servants, and living with only three of his wives while dispatching homicide bombers to Allah’s paradise where seventy-two virgins, as promised in the Quran and Hadith, are breathlessly awaiting the arrival of the fools who have carried out mass murder on Allah’s behalf.

If someone were to write a novel depicting the Islam of today’s preaching and practices, no publisher of repute would publish his work on the grounds that it is too outlandish and ridiculous to be believed. Yet, nearly a billion and a half of the human species—a species supposedly endowed with the greatest of intelligence—swallows the utter nonsense of Islam whole and even dispenses it to others by any and all means it can. It is one of those great mysteries of life that defies logic.

Now, one murderer is dead. Yet, regrettably the ideology and forces that inflicted the world with one Osama Bin Laden are busily producing thousands of other Osamas in Islamic madrasas, mosques, Islamic front organizations such as Council on American-Islamic Relations and even academic institutions with madrasas in places such as Pakistan; mosques preaching hatred of the infidels to the very young; front organizations such as the Brotherhood, academic centers, and so forth.

As humans, our two legs move us along, but it is our minds that tell us which path to take in life and what to do. As the mind commands so goes the person. Yet, for humans, the mind does not arrive in this world with a set program of instructions. Contrary to many beliefs, we are born neither as demons nor as angels. Within each one of us is a potential for a demon or an angel. Many evolve into a mix of the two, a few fortunate mature into truly angelic and some become personifications of evil. It is the mind’s program that plays the critical role in making us what we are.

Every one of us arrives in this world as a helpless infant at the mercy of others, not only to be fed, cleaned and protected, but also to be informed about the bewildering life we face. Others can teach the new arrivals only what they know and believe. And much of what adults know and believe is a hodge-podge handed down to them by the adults that raised them.

Islam, from its inception, discovered the crucial secret of getting to the young mind early by adhering to the dictum: Instruction in early childhood is akin to carving in the rock. In the same vein goes the Jesuit saying, “Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man,” derived from the philosophy and theology of Saint Augustine. The immense importance of getting early to the young mind is also emphasized by non-religious doctrines as diverse as the Freudian psychoanalytic theory and Watsonian Behaviorist psychology.

It is thus that millions of infants annually end up in the care of people who themselves are imbued with a pathological Islamist belief system rooted in the mores and practices of the primitives of the Arabian Peninsula.

From very early on, the young child is indoctrinated in the belief that there is an omniscient, ever-vigilant Allah who observes everything a person does and even everything he contemplates. Nothing whatsoever escapes this omnipresent all-knowing being. Allah keeps tabs, bestows incredibly desirous rewards if one behaves as told while dispensing unimaginably tortuous punishment if one strays.

Let’s recall the bold claim of J.B. Watson: “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”

There is a great deal of truth to this claim. The evidence is indisputable that environmental influences, in the broadest sense, play pivotal roles in molding the person. That is why the great majority of Christian children, for instance, grow up Christian and not Muslim, and vice versa. And it is in the toxic Islamic environment of home and the larger society that millions of children are indoctrinated. Jihadists come from the incubator of Islam. Islam successfully traps the minds of many into a cocoon of a delusionary world.

It is foolish to underestimate the dangers of Islamic mental manipulation. All Muslims share an Islamic cognitive repertoire with considerable variations. As is the case with any population distribution, a great majority forms the middle while minorities populate the extremes. Islamic apologists and many Muslims point to the middle as true Islam, thereby disassociating themselves from the two extremes and may even denounce them as not being Muslims.

At one extreme are the Nominal Muslims. These Muslims adhere loosely to the Islamic precepts and practices, ordinarily pose little threat to non-Muslims, and may even reject some aspects of the religion.

At the other extreme are the diehard fanatical jihadists who present severe threats not only to non-Muslims but also to the so-called Moderate Muslims as well as the Nominal Muslims.

To this extremist group nothing is out of bounds in furthering its cause. Dissimulation, deception, and all manner of violence are their Quran-sanctioned tools. As part of their scheme, this malevolent group has adopted highly effective strategies for subjugating the West, its people and its culture. In keeping with their supremacist racist cult, their god, Allah is proclaimed as the greatest god—Allah-o-Akbar. Yet, in English, one hears only the deceptive translation—God is great, and not the actual Arabic—Allah is the greatest.

These very same Muslims can always count on enlisting huge numbers of their ordinarily “moderate Muslims” in their heinous deeds. Only a few days ago, in Egypt, these people of the religion of love and peace attacked and burned a church in Egypt and murdered Christians while the law-enforcement people watched.

History documents the pivotal role of small groups, even individuals, in precipitating monumentally important events. It is the energized militant minority that often sparks movements and directs the course of human events. And it is the minority of Muslims, militant and highly motivated soldiers of Allah, who are on the march to defeat the non-believing world and establish the Islamic Kingdom.

One Osama is dead. More Osamas are in the wings. The enemy is relentless. The free people must wage an unceasing battle against this menace of Islamism through massive education and by any other means to preserve humanity’s most prized possession—liberty.

Why Confront Islamism?

Why confront Islamism? Because if we don’t it will continue to get more extreme. This is not Islamophobia, as many Muslims and their apologists protest. A phobia is a baseless irrational fear. Detestation of Islamism, the violent form of Islam, is based on irrefutable facts and it is not only rational, it is ethically imperative.

It is a virtue to take action to oppose the hateful, vice to ignore it. It is a virtue to hate tyranny, misogyny, discriminations of all sorts, oppression, and all manners of violations of the legitimate rights of the individual and peoples.

Islamism is a mutation of Islam into a terrible menace. It is religious fascism, a destroyer of liberty and much of what free people cherish. Therefore, it must be confronted.

Islamism, Islamofascism, radical Islam and political Islam, are different terms for essentially the same thing: a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny of Islam itself. It is a systemic problem of Islam that inevitably gives rise to Islamism. The three scriptures of Islam, the Quran, Islam’s holy book; the Hadith, sayings of Muhammad as recorded by his contemporaries; and the Suna, the life examples of Muhammad himself, together form the body of Islamic beliefs. They provide an array of frequently confusing, multiple-meaning and even outright contradictory dogma that enable anyone to pick and choose certain teachings of Islam and justify anything they do on the basis of the scripture.

The Quran enjoys a sanctified standing, since Muslims believe it is written by Allah himself. Allah handed down the Quran to Archangel Gabriel, chapter by chapter, to deliver to Muhammad over the course of some 22 years. Muhammad could neither read nor write. So Gabriel had to whisper the chapters to him and Muhammad in turn would reveal them to any literate person who happened to be around to write them down on anything he could find. To Muslims, every word of the Quran is a literal perfect immutable eternal word of Allah himself. Therefore, no man or divine is ever to revise, much less dispute, the Quran.

The hodgepodge of Islamic scripture is the medium for generating all kinds of mutations, some of which such as Islamism are extremely dangerous. A segment of any society, at any time, is staffed by people who feel disaffected, alienated, and disenfranchised. It is from the ranks of this population that Islamists heavily recruit.

Islamism’s rallying cry is also of particular attraction to the young since it is rabidly anti-establishment. The young lack a major stake in society but brim with action-inclined vitality. They are among the most willing recruits to anti-establishment causes. Older leaders frequently take advantage of the young’s proclivity to act and enlist them as foot-soldiers in their cause. The Hitler’s youth, the Soviet Union’s young Communists, and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Bassij (young Islamic storm troopers) are some examples of the young’s enlistment by tyrannical systems.

Furthermore, there is excitement in action, any action. The greater the risk, the greater is the excitement and this feature is highly attractive to a significant segment of the population. That’s why it is said that war is exciting, while peace is boring. The validation of this dictum is seen daily, for instance, in numberless arenas where battles rage between combatants, be they cocks, dogs, or human. Throngs of spectators pay by time and money to participate vicariously in the socially-approved brutalities.

In any physical contest, the more violent side usually prevails. The Islamists use ruthless force to eliminate the opposition or to intimidate them to join its ranks.

Islamism is rapidly advancing on two fronts. In every Islamic country, it is cowing the non-radicals while recruiting more and more radicals into its own ranks. In non-Muslim lands, flush with Petrodollars, Islamism is establishing itself as a formidable force by enlisting the disaffected and attracting the delusional liberals with its promises. For the faithful, there is the added incentive of Allah’s heaven and its irresistible attractions.

There are those who claim that the majority of Muslims in the world are moderate and non-violent. It may be so. Yet, the silence of this majority is deafening, although, they do speak up from time-to-time by, for instance, claiming that the 9/11 slaughter was the work of the Jews, even when Osama himself proudly admits the dastardly act.

This very same Muslim majority pours into the streets of the West on a moment’s notice to protest against the slightest perceived affront to its sanctities, but they never march to condemn the violent acts of the Islamists- or speak up against them. This sort of majority behavior makes it complicit with the Islamists.

In spite of all this, Islam’s apologists and lobbyists want us to accept the notion that the present Islamic radicalism is an aberration that given time will dissipate as have all radical movements of the past. These folk fail to tell us about the radical movements that inflicted horrors on humanity before they expired. Here are a few instances of the bloody acts of radicalism from Wikipedia:

• Japan 1910-45. Imperial Japanese killed 25,000,000 Chinese and enslaved millions of Koreans.
• Soviet Union 1918-89. Communists killed 20,000,000 of their own citizens.
• Germany 1940-45. Nazis killed 11,000,000 Jews, Romas, homosexuals, Slavs, the mentally ill and Communists.
• China 1950-80. Communists killed 65,000,000 fellow Chinese.
• Bangladesh 1971. Muslims killed 1,500,000 Hindus.
• Cambodia 1975-79. Communist Cambodians killed 1,700,000 Cambodians.
• Afghanistan 1979-89. Soviet Communists killed unspecified number of Afghans.
• Sudan 1983-2007. Arab/Muslims killed over 2,000,000 Africans.

Also, Iraq’s socio-fascist Baathist government slaughtered several hundred thousand Kurds and Shiites during Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. And let us not forget the genocidal mullahs presently ruling Iran. These Islamofascists executed, without the least due process, tens of thousands of the opposition in order to consolidate their Islamist tyranny. The mullahs’ present project is the subjugation of the region and, down the road, the world itself.

Islamism (Islam) threatens to set a new record for brutality, contrary to the contention that there is no reason to worry about it. Jihadist Wahabism’s tentacles are reaching out from its cradle in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf Arab Emirates. The Petrodollar flush Sunni zealots are liberally financing mosques, madresehs (Islamic indoctrination schools), Islamic centers at universities, front organizations and lobbyists to promote the Wahhabi virulent Islamism in every part of the world.

Murderous Shiism, led by Iran’s racing to arm itself with the ultimate weapon, is busily doing whatever it can to ensnare the world into Islam’s nation, the Ummah. The purported peaceful Muslim majorities are nowhere to be seen. They are either complicit with the Islamists or on the retreat from Southeast Asia to the Americas, from Australia, to Europe.

Islamism is a pincers, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis. The two jaws aim to crush the life of all non-believers. It is imperative that people who value liberty rise up and act to defeat Islamism. Here are some specific suggestions:

• The Hate Crime Laws should be vigorously enforced and strengthened.
• Any mosque, Islamic center or front organization that condones or promotes hate or violence must be shut down.
• Islamic studies centers at universities must be scrutinized to guard against mercenary academes who deceptively preach the gospel of Islamism.
• Lobbyists and front organizations serving Islamism must be investigated as to their sources of funds.
• Laws should be enacted to protect all media and individuals against lawsuits, so that they can report the truth without risking ruinous litigations.
• Imams, mullahs and others who promote Islamic hate doctrine should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
• Racial, sexist and all other forms of discriminatory hate teachings should be banned.
• Local Muslims should review Islamic literature, including the Quran, and should mark them with an asterisk, disavowing teachings of hate and violence or purge them entirely.

It is urgent that we confront Islamism. All free people, Muslim or not, must demand that their governments, at all levels, abandon the practice of political correctness and act to safeguard liberty against the truly deadly assault of Islamism on the rest of the World.

Turkey: Islamism's Consequences for the West

The "good times" between Turkey and the West seem to be over. As the Erdogan years in Turkey have attempted to turn Turkey from a once-secular country into a de facto Islamist country, the West and Turkey seem to be on a collision course, or at best, an impasse.

The questions now to ask include: What to do about an Erdogan-ruled Turkey that appears intent on reshaping the Middle East in its own Islamist and nationalist image and agenda; the response of America and the West (particularly NATO) if Turkey breaks diplomatic relations with Israel; and what how to adjust the US-Turkish relationship in light of Turkey's friendly relationships with the dictatorships of Iran and Sudan.

Also of paramount concern is how Turkey might react toward an autonomous Kurdistan in the north of Iraq. Turkey has constantly rattled its scimitar against the PKK guerillas, and crossed the border into northern Iraq under the guise of pursuing Kurdish guerillas. It has also talked about protecting the Turkmens, relatives of the Turks, who just so happen to live in the oil rich city of Kirkuk, a city contested by Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens alike. Once America has withdrawn from Iraq, would America and NATO turn the other way to a possible Turkish occupation of Iraqi-controlled Kurdistan? Keeping silent about internal Turkish matters may be one thing, but a failing to respond to Turkey's foreign policy moves - especially military moves - could bring about an even further destabilized situation in the Middle East, affecting an already fractured Muslim world.

It is also possible -- especially in light of Europe's reluctance to admit Turkey into the European Union -- that Erdogan is just waiting for a West-NATO confrontation with Turkey: Erdogan might use such an incident to whip up Turkish passions -- both nationalist and religious -- and once again show himself as a Muslim leader willing and able to stand up to the West. Turkey would no doubt bring up Turkish "grievances" -- claims that it is just trying to right the supposed wrongs of the past, and claims that will encompass not only Turkey's national complaints, but those of the rest of the Muslim world (sans Kurdistan) towards the West.

The irony of Turkey and its relations with the West cannot be lost in light of the fact that Barack Obama started his "outreach" to the Muslim world last year while giving a speech in Turkey's parliament. If Obama's feckless response to Iran's brutal crackdown on demonstrators last year over the "re-election" of Ahmadinejad is any indicator, one should certainly not expect Obama to react any differently vis-à-vis Turkey and its Islamist agenda. This not only applies to Israel, in that it seems unlikely that the current American administration will come to the aid of Israel in its deteriorating relations with Turkey, but also to Kurdistan and the rest of the Muslim world. The apparent obsession on the part of Obama with "repairing" relations with the Muslim world, even at the expense of Muslims trying – and even dying – to break the shackles of their totalitarian regimes, may signal that America no longer has the will or desire to confront Middle Eastern dictators. If such a scenario plays out, a major void will have been created in a region of monumental strategic importance to the West – a void which countries like Russia, China, and Iran could seek to exploit and replace.

Although the one institution that could prevent Turkey from becoming an Islamic republic is the Turkish army, it remains a question if the army could -- or would -- act. If it did, how would the Turkish people, as well as the West, react to such a situation? A new Turkish coup would be the fifth one in fifty years, and could open the military to charges of interfering in the democratic process. No doubt, Erdogan and the AKP appear to be "using democracy in order to destroy democracy."

And as the referendum on reforms to Turkey's constitution passed overwhelmingly on September 12^th, with 58% of the vote, many critics say that this will only strengthen Erdogan and his AKP, further eroding the strength of the military and judiciary. Of course, Erdogan has said the opposite, and that the constitutional reforms will only strengthen Turkey's "democracy." However, Erdogan has already stated that a new constitution is needed, stoking further fears of an AKP Islamist takeover.

Erdogan's only real opposition is the CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) otherwise known as the Republican People's Party. Ironically, this party was founded by Ataturk in 1923. Recently, it has been mired in a sex scandal forcing its leader, Deniz Baykal, to resign. It is currently led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a left-of-center politician.

At the end of the day, it appears that Turkey's last hope of staving off an Islamic Republic and a confrontation with the West is in the scheduled election of July 2011: voting Erdogan's party out. However, with Erdogan riding high after his constitutional referendum victory, this likelihood does noit, at present, appear to be likely.

A short background:

For close to ninety years now, the Republic of Turkey has been officially a secular state. The reforms implemented by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920's, turned Turkey from an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate into a modern Western-style secular state. When Ataturk overthrew the Sultanate under Mehmed (Mohammad) VI Vahideddin in 1922, he was signaling a global shift in Turkey's thinking, attitude, and way of life. (The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 when Abdul Mecid II, was forced into exile. Thus, the reign of the Ottomans, who had ruled Turkey, much of the Middle East, and a portion of Europe since the foundation of the empire in 1517, officially ended.)

Ataturk's reforms were so great – and stringent – that the term "Kemalism" is used to describe the tremendous transformation that Turkey went through from the age of the Ottomans to the age of the Kemalists. Ataturk was intent on reshaping Turkey; throwing off its Islamic past, and steering it toward the West. Among his major reforms were not only abolishing the Sultanate and Caliphate, and officially declaring the country a secular republic, but also, in 1928, banning of the fez and hijab, and replacing the Turko-Arabic script with that of the Latin alphabet. For a while, Ataturk was so intent on "de-Islamizing" Turkey, that he forbade the muezzin (prayer caller) from using Arabic when calling Muslims to prayer. As many know, Muslim prayers must be said in Arabic only; the banning of Arabic prayer was too much for the religious Muslims, and eventually even Ataturk had to relent and allow its reinstitution.

As the decades went by, Turkey weathered weak governments; army coups; right wing and left wing terrorism; and a host of other problems -- and, most notably, a Kurdish insurrection that continues to this day and has from time to time spilled over into Iraqi-administered Kurdistan.

In 1996, Necmettin Erbakan, leader of the Refah (Welfare Party), became Prime Minister; he was the first "post-Kemalist" prime minister who openly and unabashedly proclaimed his Islamist tendencies. After much controversy, the Turkish army -- the guardians of the secular state – diplomatically pushed Erbakan aside; and it appeared that Turkey had weathered its short term dalliance with an Islamic renaissance.

The situation, however, changed in the elections of 2002 when a new Islamist party – the Justice and Development Party – (Adaltet Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP) emerged with the largest number of seats in parliament. Its leader, the former mayor of Istanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was a devoutly religious Muslim. Erdogan had been a follower of Erbakan; while still mayor of Istanbul in 1997, he was arrested for "religious incitement" due to a poem that he recited which hinted in part at a return to a militant brand of Islam:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers."

Aside from the metaphors, it must have come as a shock to the secular authorities that the mayor of such a cosmopolitan city as Istanbul, would be as brash as to recite such a poem that no doubt was a strong hint of his views on religion and the state. Eventually, Erdogan was brought up on incitement charges in 1998, but served only 4 months of a ten month sentence.

After the debacle of Erbakan's rule, and Erdogan's own brush with the secular authorities, Erdogan became more subtle in his attempts to re-Islamize Turkey. After Refah was banned in 1998, he became instrumental in forming the AKP in 2001, which de-emphasized -- at least publicly -- its Islamist ambitions.

In the November 2002 national elections, the AKP won only about 34% of the vote, but emerged with the most elected representatives (363 out of 550) in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (the Turkish parliament). Because of Erdogan's prison sentence, he was not allowed to assume the role of prime minister; it went to his right-hand man, Abdullah Gul. Through parliamentary maneuvers, however, Gul and his allies were able to change the law so that Erdogan could become prime minister in March 2003. Erdogan assured his country – and the West – that he was committed to a secular government - although his chimerical nature was revealed in a New York Times article, in May 2003, in which he was quoted as saying, "Before anything else, I am a Muslim." In the same article, though, he stated that "A political party cannot have a religion. Only individuals can." At the very least, this shows an apparently conflicted opinion on religion and secularism. The article also related a very chilling comment about Erdogan's opinion of democracy when he was still Istanbul's mayor: "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."

That same month, while America was planning "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, Washington asked permission from Turkey to allow U.S. forces to open a northern front against Iraq from Turkish territory. While Erdogan and Gul did not openly say no to the request, the Turkish parliament rejected it. Washington was stunned.

As the years passed, Erdogan continued to cultivate a moderate image in the West, while quietly espousing Islamist causes in Turkey -- most notably by appointing members of the judiciary and government ministers who were religious conservatives, and thereby changing the landscape of Turkey's secular foundations. Paradoxically, he appointed a supposedly avowed secularist as his new military chief of staff, Mehmet Ilker Basbug, in 2008; but on August 30^th, Basbug retired and was replaced by Land Forces Commander Isik Kosaner, who promised to uphold the secular character of Turkey.

Earlier this year, however, the Erdogan government had forty military officers arrested, claiming that they were planning to "destabilize" the government. Many critics saw this as another step in Erdogan's attempt to do away with the Kemalist republic and neutralize the once staunchly secularist military.

Erdogan's apparent "good cop/bad cop" approach extends also to his relations with Washington. While professing friendship for America and the West, in 2006, Erdogan was quite vocal in his approval of the notoriously and viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli movie "Valley of the Wolves." The movie portrayed American soldiers in Iraq as murderers, and included a Jewish doctor harvesting Iraqi organs for sale in Tel Aviv. Even Erdogan's wife, Emine (a conservative Muslim who is always seen wearing a traditional Turkish hijab) also chimed in about the movie, praising the actors, and stating that she was "so proud" of them. More recently a thirteen part – and virulently anti-Semitic -- series was aired on Turkish TV, entitled "Separation: Palestine in Love and War," which aired to rave reviews in parts of the Arab world as well as in Turkey. This series, despite Israeli protestations, led to a further poisoning of Turko-Israeli relations. Ironically, some Arabs decried the series as well, but not out of defense of Israel. Apparently, the reason was that the Turkish series showed the Palestinians as killing their daughters after having been raped by Israeli soldiers, something the Palestinians object to as defaming them.

Contrary to the myth among many Jews and others who see a good portion of Turks as at best indifferent to Israel and Jews, "Mein Kampf" reached the best sellers list in Turkey in 2005. The book was subsequently banned -- in part through German efforts -- but it probably should give the reader pause for concern if average Turks make "Mein Kampf" a best seller.

Meanwhile, internal recriminations continued to simmer in Turkey between the Kemalists and the Islamists, with new Turkish elections held in 2007. This time, the AKP received over 46% of the vote – almost 12% more than in 2002 -- and 341 seats. Ironically, while garnering an overall higher percentage of the vote than in the previous election, the AKP lost twelve seats, which went to other parties. A short time later, Abdullah Gul became president after three rounds of voting in the Turkish parliament, again causing controversy, with many Turks seeing Gul's election as another victory for the Islamists. Like Prime Minister Erdogan's wife, Gul's wife, Hayrunissa, also wears a headscarf -- which has now become a symbol of the clash between secularists and Islamists.

After the AKP's second victory, and Gul's ascension to the presidency shortly thereafter, Erdogan began to become more outspoken in his criticism of the West, and especially Israel, as was seen by his eruption against Israel's president, Shimon Peres, at a January 2009 meeting at Davos, Switzerland, when Erdogan launched into a vitriolic verbal assault against Israel, stating to the shocked Peres that "when it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," and then stormed off the stage. Unfortunately, like a true "dhimmi" [second-class citizen according to Sharia Law], Peres phoned Erdogan, apologizing to the prime minister if there might have been any misunderstanding regarding the verbal dispute between the two leaders in light of Israel's offensive against Hamas in 2008.

Turkish anti-Americanism began to increase as well. Even as President Obama was beginning his "apology tour" by visiting Turkey in April 2009, anti-American demonstrations were well underway, with demonstrators chanting slogans against both Obama and America. Much of the anti-American feeling had to do with the American invasion of Iraq and perceived American "atrocities;" and no doubt, the constant anti-American and anti-Israeli media barrage in the Turkish government-controlled press played a large role in the average Turk's opinion of both America and Israel.

After the uproar in June 2010 over the "activist flotilla," Turkey announced cancellation of military exercises with Israel, as well as the cancellation of military contracts between them. Turkey also recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv and strongly hinted at breaking diplomatic relations with Israel. Turkish officials have spoken of "Turkish honor" and "Turkish pride" regarding events vis-à-vis Israel, yet it appears that the terms "Israeli honor" and "Israeli pride" -- let alone "Israeli self-defense" -- are words that do not exist in the Turkish lexicon. Even a "moderate" Islamist as Fethullah Gullen, also no friend of Israel, criticized the Turkish led "flotilla" fiasco. Yet where is "Turkish pride" and "Turkish honor" when the tyrant from Tehran, Ahmadinejad, refused to visit Kemal Ataturk's mausoleum? At one time in Turkey, such a display of diplomatic arrogance and contempt for Ataturk would have been met with outrage by a secular Turkish government and military. Apparently, in today's Turkey, that is a thing of the past.

There is another telling sign in Turkish-Israeli relations of how far Turkey has veered from its one time alliance with Israel: Turkey's recent appointment of Hakan Fidan, as head of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization. It has been rumored that Fidan might have played a role in the flotilla incident, and might also have relations with the Islamist dominated IHH (Insan Hak ve Hurriyetleri ve Insani Yardim Vakfi (The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief), which orchestrated the Marmara flotilla.

Turkey's vitriolic statements and actions on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs by Prime Minister Erdogan has come as a shock. But while Erdogan still vehemently condemns Israelis as "murderers," and calls Israel a "festering boil in the Middle East," he hypocritically refuses to address the Armenian genocide, even though it was perpetrated under Ottoman rule close to a century ago. Further, while Erdogan supports his Muslim "brothers" in "Palestine," he continues in implacable hostility toward his own Kurdish Muslim minority, and especially towards a quasi-independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Apparently, "Islamic solidarity" is fine with Turkey, as long as the Kurds play no role in Turkish affairs other than to be subservient to Ankara's desires. One final aspect to ponder is: if Turkish officials call Israelis "murderers" and Israel a "festering boil in the Middle East" while still having relations with Israel, what will their rhetoric and actions be if and when they break relations completely with Israel? Perhaps, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran which openly calls for Israel's destruction, Turkey may wish to foster a more "moderate Islamist" façade, and call for the repeal of United Nations Resolution 181 of November 22, 1947 which ultimately led to the establishment of modern day Israel. At present, this may seem unfathomable, if not absurd, but a short time ago, the notion of Turkey rejecting Kemalism and establishing itself on an Islamist path was also thought unfathomable.

As Turkey escalated its Israel-bashing barrage, it also courted the Arab world and Iran. This appears to be not only for political reasons, but for economic reasons as well. The Turkish budget deficit has swollen tremendously over the last few years, doubling in just the last year alone. Oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran will gladly aid Turkey economically, which will only increase their political and possibly religious influence as well. Meanwhile, Turkey also tried to patch up differences with Greece and Armenia, long time Eastern Christian foes. The Cyprus issue, however, will no doubt remain a continuing thorn in Greco-Turkish relations, not to mention Turkey's support of the Azeris over the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

Further, there is the intractable dispute over Kurdistan. If ever an ethnic minority in the Middle East -- other than the Jews -- has been mistreated and betrayed, it is the Kurdish nation. From the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, to the first Gulf War and beyond, the Kurds have been victimized by Arabs, Persians, and Turks alike. All the while, the West has turned a blind eye. It is not unthinkable that after America's withdrawal from Iraq, Turkey will seek a pretense to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan under the guise of protecting their Turkmen "brothers" from Kurdish "aggression." Additionally, the northern city of Kirkuk is oil rich; control of it by Turkey would strengthen Turkey economically.

For now, Turkey, still a powerful member of NATO, and still presumably a friend of America, teeters between East and West. A "neo-Ottoman" Empire -- like a "neo-Czarist" Russia that appears in the making -- is something that America, the West, and Israel, should take seriously.

In the Middle East, the past is never forgotten and never forgiven. The future in the Middle East often consists of the merging of the present with the past. The West might therefore be well advised to prepare for the day that a once pro-Western secular Turkey no longer exists. The once "sick man of Europe" of the 18^th and 19^th centuries has now become the 21^st century "strongman of the Middle East." While the secularist Kemalist ship is sinking in the Straits of the Bosporus, the neo-Ottoman Islamist ship of Erdogan is docking at the port of Istanbul.

---

This article appeared in Hudson-NY website.

Dangerous Accommodations

Scott Brown can't get to Washington soon enough. In his victory speech on Tuesday night, the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts underscored a central plank in his campaign platform: "Let me say this: with respect to the people who wish to harm us, I believe – and I know all of you believe – that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. And the message we need to send in dealing with terrorists: Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, and not lawyers to defend them."

This commonsensical approach to dealing with our enemies clearly found resonance with the voters of one of the most liberal states in the nation. Polls suggest on related questions about closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay and bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in New York City, Americans across this country are of a similar mind. Yet, with each passing day it is evident that the Obama administration is committed to a very different course, one that is likely to get more of us killed.

For instance, we discovered this week that neither the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency nor the Secretary of Homeland Security were consulted before the decision was taken to allow Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab to lawyer-up in Detroit. We are told that, for some reason, local FBI agents – who had gotten a wealth of valuable intelligence in the course of a few hours with the alleged Christmas Day pantybomber before they told him he had the right to remain silent – believed they needed to Mirandize the terrorist before he went into surgery.

With that, on advice of counsel, Abdulmutallab clammed up and – despite claims by the President's Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, that plea-bargaining will elicit more cooperation from this jihadist – it now seems unlikely that such help will be forthcoming and, if it is, that it will be "actionable."

Then, we learn that the State Department has decided to offer 14,000 of its "diversity visas" to Nigerians wishing to immigrate to this country. Never mind that Abdulmutallab exemplifies a portion of that nation's Muslim population that has embraced the supremacist, totalitarian ideology called "Shariah" by authoritative Islam, the same program that obliges its adherents to engage in jihad (or holy war). Randomly allocating visas to such folks assuredly increases the probability of inviting more of jihadists into our midst.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the State Department announced that Secretary Hillary Clinton had personally exercised her authority to waive a prohibition on the entry into the United States of two prominent Islamists, Tariq Ramadan (the Swiss Islamist who is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, the son of a preeminent Brotherhood propagandist and a professor at Oxford) and Adam Habib, a professor at the University of Johannesburg. As spokesman Darby Holladay put it, "Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the U.S. government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

The chief State Department press flak, P.J. Crowley, added: "As we look at it, we do not think that either one of them represents a threat to the United States. We want to encourage a global debate. We want to have the opportunity potentially to have Islamic scholars come to the United States and have dialogue with other faith communities in our country."

In the case of Ramadan, this action reverses a decision taken as long ago as 2004 by George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security. At the time, one of America's leading experts on Islamism, Daniel Pipes, reported that a "DHS spokesman, Russ Knocke, explained that this had been done in accord with a law that denies entry to aliens who have used a ‘position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.' The revocation, Mr. Knocke added, was based on ‘public safety or national security interests.'"

Interestingly, in his prepared statement, Clinton spokesman Holladay claimed that the two professors "were denied admittance after making statements counter to U.S. foreign policy." For Ramadan, at least, the grounds for exclusion were very different: Daniel Pipes points out that he did not get a visa because the Swiss Islamist had "funded two Hamas-related groups."

In an article in the New York Sun published on August 27, 2004, around the time of Ramadan's exclusion, Dr. Pipes went on to enumerate a number of Ramadan's other, publicly reported ties to terrorism:

• He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the "future of Islam."
• Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
• Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for al Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
• Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
• Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that bin Laden was behind 9/11.
• He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as "interventions," minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.

While the President and Secretary of State gloss this decision with platitudes about "mutual interest and mutual respect" between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, Americans will get no genuine "respect" from Ramadan – nor will he encourage his co-religionists to give it to others considered "infidels."

In fact, Ramadan is, as Caroline Fourest documented in her marvelous book, Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan, a man gifted at saying one thing to non-Muslims and something altogether different to Muslim ones. If admitted into the United States, he will engage in his sophisticated "double discourse," sounding the quintessential moderate in settings where that will serve his cause, yet espousing Shariah and the Islamic supremacism it demands when speaking to the faithful.

In each of these instances, and too many others to mention in the space available here, the Obama administration is acting in ways that intensify the risk to Americans at the hands of those who adhere to Shariah. It can only be hoped that the more prudent and responsible attitude towards our enemies endorsed by the people of Massachusetts with their election of Scott Brown will translate into a vigorous rejection of Team Obama's priorities and conduct with regard to those who practice Islam pursuant to Shariah and who seek to impose it on the rest of us.